H. v. Cigna Health and Life Insurance

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
S.H. and J.H.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CIGNA HEALTH and LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, CIGNA BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH, the LOCKHEED MARTIN
CORPORATION and the LOCKHEED
MARTIN CORPORATION MEDICAL
BENEFITS PLAN,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED
MOTION FOR LIMITED AMENDMENT
TO BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Case No. 2:22-cv-00552-TC
Judge Tena Campbell
Before the court is the parties’ Stipulated Motion for Limited Amendment to Post-
Remand Briefing Schedule. (ECF No. 91.) The parties seek to amend the briefing schedule
established by the court in its September 1, 2026 Order. (Id.) That briefing schedule established
that “renewed motions for summary judgment [were] due 9/15/26, oppositions due 10/13/26, and
replies due 11/3/26.” (ECF No. 84.) In addition to establishing the briefing schedule, in that
Order the court stated: “The court will not grant further extensions.” (Id.) (emphasis in original).
Nevertheless, late in the afternoon of October 12, 2026—which is both the day before the
opposition brief deadline and a federal holiday1 —the parties filed the motion currently before the
court, seeking to extend today’s opposition briefing deadline by an additional week.
“Under Rule 6(b)(1), a district court may extend a deadline for ‘good cause.’” Utah
Republican Party v. Herbert, 678 F. App’x 697, 700 (10th Cir. 2017) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
1 The court was closed for Columbus Day on October 12, 2026. The days that the United States
District Court for the District of Utah will be closed are listed on the Court’s public website,
here: https://www.utd.uscourts.gov/general-information
Case 2:22-cv-00552-TC Document 94 Filed 10/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 3

2
6(b)(1)). To grant the extension when the request is made “before the original deadline,” the
court “need … find good cause.” Id. (first citing Rachel v. Troutt, 820 F.3d 390, 395 (10th Cir.
2016); and then citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A)). As the Tenth Circuit has explained, “[g]ood
cause comes into play in situations in which there is no fault…. In such situations, the need for
an extension is usually occasioned by something that is not within the control of the movant.”
Id. at 700–01. The Tenth Circuit has also explained that “[a] lawyer’s medical problems or
serious health challenges may be an adequate justification for delayed filings.” Perez v. El
Tequila, LLC, 847 F.3d 1247, 1253 (10th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted).
Here, inter alia, Plaintiffs’ counsel aver that “[g]ood cause exists for this limited
extension due to an illness affecting Plaintiffs’ counsel.” (ECF No. 91 at 2.) Consequently, this
court finds that there is good cause for an extension based on illness and the other representations
made in the parties’ motion. But in granting the parties’ request, this court notes that last-minute
requests like those made by the parties in the motion at hand are disfavored. See, e.g., Advanced
Recovery Sys., LLC v. Am. Agencies, LLC, No. 213CV00283, 2020 WL 13179726, at *3 (D.
Utah Aug. 3, 2020) (“The court is not inclined to grant last-minute extensions of these
deadlines.”). As are vague claims that attorney illness is to blame for delay. See Lopez v.
Cantex Health Care Centers II, LLC, No. 122CV00824, 2023 WL 2206791, at *3–4 (D.N.M.
Feb. 24, 2023), aff’d, No. 23-2038, 2023 WL 7321637 (10th Cir. Nov. 7, 2023) (denying motion
for extension of time and observing that excusable neglect was not established where party
seeking extension of time “did not make a sufficient record establishing excusable neglect based
on an alleged staff member’s illness” where it “vaguely blame[d] a staff member’s illness, but
[did] not give the Court any specific facts” or “provide an affidavit identifying the staff member
or explaining how the illness caused the [issue that caused the delay]”). And, finally, that “an
Case 2:22-cv-00552-TC Document 94 Filed 10/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 3

3
enlargement of the time period is by no means a matter of right.” Herbert, 678 F. App’x at 700
(10th Cir. 2017) (quoting Eller v. Trans Union, LLC, 739 F.3d 467, 478 n.10 (10th Cir. 2013)).
However, since the parties seek only a brief extension of the deadlines, and they submitted this
request before the deadline had passed, the court grants their request.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the parties’ motion (ECF No. 91) is GRANTED,
and that the post-remand briefing schedule is amended as follows:
1. 	Opposition briefs in response to the parties’ renewed motions for summary
judgment shall be due October 20, 2026.
2. 	Reply briefs in further support of the parties’ renewed motions for summary
judgment shall be due November 10, 2026.
3. 	All other provisions of the court’s September 1, 2026 Order (ECF No. 84) remain
in effect.
DATED this 13th day of October, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
_________________________________
Tena Campbell
United States District Judge
Case 2:22-cv-00552-TC Document 94 Filed 10/13/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 3
of 3